You sorta have the first question answered. For the 3 presumably full length slots, one has only 4 lanes, and two share 16 between them. If you use both of those two, each will only have 8 available to them. If you only use one, that one will have the full 16. This is a very common arrangement. Note that effectively PCIe 2.0 x16 is equivalent to PCIe 3.0 x8. When PCIe 3.0 came out, it was shown the performance impact of having x8 vs x16 was very small - I don't know of studies done on newer graphics cards. Also, a full length card plugged into a full length slot will generally always work, regardless of how many lanes the card is capable of using or are available, BUT there may be a performance impact. You will definitely notice if you plug a graphics card into the x4 slot, for example.

The two x1 slots are probably connected to the south bridge and share interconnect bandwidth with it (sorry if I got the terminology wrong gerbils), they will both work in any configuration.

churin wrote:2. Can the two x1 slots be usable regardless of how the three x16 slots are used?

It depends on where the x1 slots are located. If they are too close to the x16 slot and you put a high end video card in there it will physically block the x1. You need to look at a picture of the MB to determine this.

churin wrote:2. Can the two x1 slots be usable regardless of how the three x16 slots are used?

It depends on where the x1 slots are located. If they are too close to the x16 slot and you put a high end video card in there it will physically block the x1. You need to look at a picture of the MB to determine this.

OK, the two x1 slots are always available as long as there is no such physical constraints.

Last review I read on the subject (I can't remember where, but it was probably either Techpowerup or [H]) averaged out the scores.

Testing a GTX570 with PCIe 2.0, an 8x slot was about a 2% performance penalty compared to a 16x slot, with the penalty growing to a 5% less than a 16x slot when using a 4x slot.

In other words, using a 4x slot isn't a complete deal-breaker, but there will be a small measurable difference. As for 16x vs 8x, I very much doubt you'd notice without repeating monotonous benchmark loops to average out the variance between each test run.

Some people ask me why I have always enclosed my signature in spoiler tags; There is a good reason for that, but I can't elaborate without giving away the plot twist.

TwistedKestrel wrote:You sorta have the first question answered. For the 3 presumably full length slots, one has only 4 lanes, and two share 16 between them. If you use both of those two, each will only have 8 available to them. If you only use one, that one will have the full 16.

Does (x16/0 or x8/x8, x4) mean (one video card + one x4 card) or (two video cards + one x4 card)? If this is so, then in either case, does it mean only 20 lanes are used by these cards?

churin wrote:OK, the two x1 slots are always available as long as there is no such physical constraints.

Yes.

churin wrote:Does (x16/0 or x8/x8, x4) mean (one video card + one x4 card) or (two video cards + one x4 card)? If this is so, then in either case, does it mean only 20 lanes are used by these cards?

Yes.

Basically there are only 16 lanes of PCIe 2.0 coming from the CPU socket. These go to the first and second x16 slots. If you only use one of them you get the full 16 lanes (x16) for that card. If you plug in 2 cards you only get to use 8 lanes each (x8/x8). You are limited by the number of lanes from the CPU.

The third x16 slot goes to the P67 chipset on the board but its only connected to 4 lanes of PCIe 2.0 (x4). The x1 slots also go through the P67. The P67 supports up to 8 lanes of PCIe 2.0. Your board is using 6 out of the 8 lanes from the P67. Where are the other 2? You probably need a bigger board because the one your looking at may not have the real estate for those 2 extra x1 slots.

EJ257 wrote: The P67 supports up to 8 lanes of PCIe 2.0. Your board is using 6 out of the 8 lanes from the P67. Where are the other 2? You probably need a bigger board because the one your looking at may not have the real estate for those 2 extra x1 slots.

On a P67 those other two lanes are typically used for on-board peripherals: ethernet (since most boards use a discrete networking chip rather than adding a PHY to the gigE built into the chipset), USB 3.0 and additional SATA, etc. If we had the make and model of this particular board we could say exactly.

Video card will run at x8 when both full-length slots are in use. Move the x1 device to one of the x1 slots if you can, & make sure video card is in the slot that is capable of full x16 operation (not sure which one that is, check the manual).

Even if you can't move the x1 device, running the video card in an x8 slot will only have a small impact on performance.

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

The video card is on the one where it will function as x16 card if no card is on another full size slot. One of the two x1 slots is accessible but it was found that a connector could not be plugged on the card because it was located adjacent to the one end of the chassis opening for the expansion slots. So, I thought why not using the full size slot instead which is located in the middle of the chassis opening.

It is true I did not notice any change in video performance, but I wonder why 50% reduction in numbers of lanes available have only " a small impact of performance". Could anyone explain why?

churin wrote:It is true I did not notice any change in video performance, but I wonder why 50% reduction in numbers of lanes available have only " a small impact of performance". Could anyone explain why?

Because 16 lanes is overkill. In most cases 8 lanes are more than enough to keep the GPU fed, since you end up being limited by the CPU and/or GPU, not the interconnect between the two.

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

churin wrote:It is true I did not notice any change in video performance, but I wonder why 50% reduction in numbers of lanes available have only " a small impact of performance". Could anyone explain why?

Because 16 lanes is overkill. In most cases 8 lanes are more than enough to keep the GPU fed, since you end up being limited by the CPU and/or GPU, not the interconnect between the two.

UberGerbil wrote:On a P67 those other two lanes are typically used for on-board peripherals: ethernet (since most boards use a discrete networking chip rather than adding a PHY to the gigE built into the chipset), USB 3.0 and additional SATA, etc. If we had the make and model of this particular board we could say exactly.

Thank you. I forgot they could also do this.

churin wrote:I wonder why the PCIe connector is full size even though only x4 card can be used on it. Maybe there are only two different physical sizes for PCIe cards. Is this correct?

They used a full sized slot to be flexible. I think every size but x2 exist. x8 slots you could find on server boards but I have never seen them on consumer hardware. The cool thing about PCIe is that the power, signaling, and clock are always present on those pins left of the notch. The data lanes are all right of the notch starting with x1 and you can use as many or as little as you need. In your example you can plug a x1 card into that full size slot with only x4. It would only use the first set of lanes and it would work like an x1 slot. Since it is a full sized slot, if you plug a x16 card into it the card will detect only 4 lanes and will only allow the first 4 lanes on the card to be used.

churin wrote:I wonder why the PCIe connector is full size even though only x4 card can be used on it. Maybe there are only two different physical sizes for PCIe cards. Is this correct?

They used a full sized slot to be flexible. I think every size but x2 exist. x8 slots you could find on server boards but I have never seen them on consumer hardware. The cool thing about PCIe is that the power, signaling, and clock are always present on those pins left of the notch. The data lanes are all right of the notch starting with x1 and you can use as many or as little as you need. In your example you can plug a x1 card into that full size slot with only x4. It would only use the first set of lanes and it would work like an x1 slot. Since it is a full sized slot, if you plug a x16 card into it the card will detect only 4 lanes and will only allow the first 4 lanes on the card to be used.

Thank you very much for your reply.Please note that what I did was plugging a x1 card into the second full size slot on 790XTA-UD4 although the slot referred to in my post above is the the third full size slot on 979Extreme4. I was concerned about negative impact of x1 card on the second full size slot to the performance of the video card on the first full size slot.

UberGerbil wrote: . . . The cool thing about PCIe is that the power, signaling, and clock are always present on those pins left of the notch. The data lanes are all right of the notch starting with x1 and you can use as many or as little as you need. . . .

Aren't the above something useful only for PCIe card designers and not for users?

UberGerbil wrote: . . . The cool thing about PCIe is that the power, signaling, and clock are always present on those pins left of the notch. The data lanes are all right of the notch starting with x1 and you can use as many or as little as you need. . . .

Aren't the above something useful only for PCIe card designers and not for users?

It means cards will work in slots that don't necessarily match the native width of the card. The card may not run at peak performance, or you may waste capabilities of the PCIe slot, but it will still function. That's a useful feature for end users.

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

UberGerbil wrote: . . . The cool thing about PCIe is that the power, signaling, and clock are always present on those pins left of the notch. The data lanes are all right of the notch starting with x1 and you can use as many or as little as you need. . . .

Aren't the above something useful only for PCIe card designers and not for users?

It means cards will work in slots that don't necessarily match the native width of the card. The card may not run at peak performance, or you may waste capabilities of the PCIe slot, but it will still function. That's a useful feature for end users.

UberGerbil's statement as quoted is about the motherboard circuit design around the PCIe slot. I had difficulty understanding exactly what he meant and thought end users need not be concerned about.I took a close look at the mainboard and now understand exactly what his statement means.

churin wrote:UberGerbil's statement as quoted is about the motherboard circuit design around the PCIe slot. I had difficulty understanding exactly what he meant and thought end users need not be concerned about.I took a close look at the mainboard and now understand exactly what his statement means.

I didn't write that -- EJ257 did, and then a nested quote tag got mangled so that it got mis-attributed (see above). Nevertheless, it is technically correct. And I'd point out in the statement the mention of power in addition to signalling and clock, as this is often overlooked or misunderstood: an x1 (or x4 or x8) card has exactly as much power available to it as an x16 card. (Though this mostly doesn't matter, since video cards are the consumer PCIe component that consumes the most power -- and they tend to consume so much they need auxiliary power connectors anyway -- it removes one point of worry when you're thinking about mixing and matching slots and cards).